Clicking on the Pictures tab on this page from the Premiere Cinemas' website will bring up four thumbnail pictures of the theater which can be expanded for better viewing: http://www.pccmovies.com/theater.php?rtsID=49#
Clicking on the Pictures tab on this page from the Premiere Cinemas' website will bring up twelve thumbnail pictures of the theater which can be expanded for better viewing: http://www.pccmovies.com/theater.php?rtsID=68#
Clicking on the Pictures tab on this page from the Premiere Cinemas' website will bring up six thumbnail pictures of the theater which can be expanded for better viewing: http://www.pccmovies.com/theater.php?rtsID=96#
The restoration project may have stalled (probably due to the economy) but the project does have an active website with some pictures on its pages: http://www.varietytheatrecleveland.com/home
The link does not seem to be working; based on the error message, I think that the picture may be in an archive generates URLs that expire when the user signs out or a session times out.
According this article, the theater opened in 1977; it is going to be used as a training site for firefighters and EMTs before the wrecking ball falls: View link
I certainly cannot say for sure, but I think it probably was not built; if it was, it probably opened under a different name, and at a different location and there does not seem to be any real trace of it today. Aerial photos of W. 69th and S. Ada do show a large building that had retail on the first floor and two floors of apartments above on the NE corner, but nothing about it appears to suggests to me that a theater was ever part of it. The other corners today don’t suggest anything either that would indicate that a theater was once there, though the NW corner has a building not of the 1920s on it and also a considerable amount of vacant space.
The Park Theater in the Humboldt Park was born as the Isis, but if its entry here on CT is accurate, the name change occurred before 1920, so Isis might have been an available name. Most of the theaters in this general area of Chicago were around 63rd and Halsted.
This probably half-forgotten theater was in the Canadian news recently because of a raid on it by the RCMP that uncovered a large marijuana-growing operation there. Here is one of the stories that has a picture of the former theater: View link
Yes, Michael, I am indeed an amateur, as I imagine are the vast majority of those who post on this site. A more precise word would probably be enthusiast. Posters on CT are of many ages, come from many walks of life, vary in education, writing style, and as far as theaters are concerned, include people who have worked in them in various capacities or simply those who come here to offer their memories and the information they wish to share in a community of people that have a common interest. Ultimately this variety is what gives this site (and many others on the internet) the strength, color and vitality they have.
In addition, there are also vast differences in posters' access to materials, in the accuracy of their memories and in their willingness or ability to verify information before posting. There are people who post on this site whose postings sometimes annoy me. But aside from an occasional gentle mention that a discussion is going off-topic (as this one is, so it is going to be my last comment in this matter), I would not dream of disparaging any contributor or any source. If I think something is wrong, I offer what I think is correct and why, doing so as respectfully as I can, always assuming that postings are made in good faith and from a genuine wish to share, to have fun, and to be part of a community with a deeply shared interest.
This is not an academic, scholarly, or scientific journal or site nor even a newspaper (except for the news page) where some refined notion of “accuracy” is desirable or essential. I have read the guidelines very carefully, and there is not the slightest indication that postings need conform to the standards of academic research or scholarly writing or those of responsible journalism. As a person with three academic degrees, I too have done that type of writing and understand fully the standards used in that realm and why they are in place.
The irony is that in expecting such standards to be applied to postings on CT (and let me gently suggest that you perhaps do not fully appreciate this), is that it would really be counterproductive. The far less restrictive guidelines in place here cause portraits of theaters to emerge that, over time, are far richer, complete, and nuanced – and ultimately MORE accurate – than that which could ever be achieved by just posting information culled from newspapers, trade magazines, the Film Daily Yearbooks, and similar sources. The very fact that errors sometimes occur gives newcomers, even those with just a small piece to offer, the opportunity to comment and thus the site grows.
Yes, the process is slow and errors of fact and memory shall inevitably occur and I am not suggesting that posters just post anything, but what is being created here in the way it currently is will be a more complete record of the theaters and (especially) what they meant to people, created through an enjoyable (well, most of the time, anyway) process.
My guess is that it was not a roulette wheel; it probably a Dec-O-Win wheel (or a variation; different theaters used different names for similar promotions). Dec-O-Win or its clones were used by theaters from roughly the 1930s to the 1950s during times when attendance was slacking off. Patrons were given numbered tickets and a theater worker would spin the wheel. Holders of winning numbers got small prizes such as household items like glassware, theater passes, and occasionally small amounts of cash. The Oakland Paramount still revives Dec-O-Win when it shows classic films; there a story and a video about it here: View link
You raise a very interesting – and complex – issue here that is related to the ongoing debate that has been going on in the U.S. for many years around the appropriate role of government in supporting private businesses. I think you make a good case for more transparency with regard to the criteria used to determine eligibility for granting not-for-profit status. Some would, myself included, contend that operating as a not-for-profit is not identical with the reception of a government subsidy or handout, arguing that it is more comparable to the tax exemptions granted, say, to senior citizens. I am sure that others would point to a long history of private/public endeavors, and I am sure, to the recent huge government involvement in the operations of the American automakers and big banking institutions. It is that thorny problem of what is best in the public interest. As far as the purpose and mission of this site is concerned, the granting of 501c3 status obviously has resulted in the preservation of some seriously endangered theaters that might otherwise have been converted to purposes that would have either obliterated their architectural characteristics as theaters or resulted in their demolition.
I do think (and perhaps this is a point that is considered when the granting of not-for-profit status is being debated) that there should be a determination as to what degree the loss of revenue from a business operating as not-for-profit is offset by the benefit of increased area foot traffic to businesses like restaurants, etc. I think there is a difference – in terms of the public good – to granting 501c3 status to say a small, historic theater in a small town that probably can’t be upgraded to a multiplex with stadium seating and now-increasingly other amenities and the kind of tax breaks that have been granted to some operators of new multiplexes that have been noted in some of the news reports of new theater developments here on CT. I do think that if a theater can be a run at a profit, it should be. If it can’t – and the determination of this I think can be very difficult – then perhaps something a 501c3 arrangement may be appropriate as long as it does not force a for-profit enterprise into competition with it. I would not, though agree, that theaters should always conform to some kind of absolute sink-or-swim, make a profit or die policy.
The Angelika situation may have been more complicated than the cost of the A/C repair. There were quite a few follow-up reports in both the regular Houston papers and the online entertainment blogs that new leasing negotiations had been going on for months and that the Angelika had been on a month-to-month basis for some time. It would not be surprising though if the A/C problems were the straw that broke the camel’s back if they could not agree whose responsibility it was to fix it.
I wonder, especially in view of the rumors of closing that have surfaced over the last few years, and in light of Landmark’s recent theater closings in some other cities, if this theater will survive as construction has begun on Emagine Entertainment’s ten-plex nearby – especially if the new theater books some of Landmark’s traditional arthouse fare.
Michael, I shall NOT be discouraged from using the information from Mike Rivest’s site or any other online source by you or anyone else except the moderators if they so tell me. No source, not even yours, is always100% accurate. If you find an error, then while being respectful of both the poster and the source, correct it.
I truly enjoyed reading this as I was unable to attend the showing. I very appreciated the wealth of technical detail. Rick is to be congratulated for writing it, and Michael, thank you for posting it here.
Out of curiosity, as I am sure most of you know, there was a 70mm rerelease of “This is Cinerama” in the early 70s. The prints were was credited to a company called Film Effects of Hollywood. Were they generated from the 65mm internegative that Linwood Dunn created or was the Dunn internegative created much
later? Is it known how Film Effects of Hollywood created those prints in the 70s, if any of those prints exist, and, if they do, their screenability?
Another article about the proposed project to raze the theater and build a hotel; it has a picture of the theater after it closed that will enlarge if you click on it: View link
The picture links in Ed Solero’s post of May 15, 2006 referenced above no longer function; however, a new link to them can be found in his post of October 3, 2007.
The current stage curtains at the former Mark Hellinger are currently red, but they may be replacements for ones that were green.
Based on this, it would appear that the name change will be effective on or before September 14, and if the sketch of the signage and the text in the article is correct, Best Buy is going with “Theater” rather than “Theatre”: View link
Clicking on the Pictures tab on this page from the Premiere Cinemas' website will bring up four thumbnail pictures of the theater which can be expanded for better viewing: http://www.pccmovies.com/theater.php?rtsID=49#
Clicking on the Pictures tab on this page from the Premiere Cinemas' website will bring up twelve thumbnail pictures of the theater which can be expanded for better viewing: http://www.pccmovies.com/theater.php?rtsID=68#
Clicking on the Pictures tab on this page from the Premiere Cinemas' website will bring up six thumbnail pictures of the theater which can be expanded for better viewing: http://www.pccmovies.com/theater.php?rtsID=96#
My thanks to both of you for the information.
The restoration project may have stalled (probably due to the economy) but the project does have an active website with some pictures on its pages: http://www.varietytheatrecleveland.com/home
Two pictures of the theater can be seen if one clicks on the pictures tab on the theater’s page on the Premiere website: http://www.pccmovies.com/theater.php?rtsID=9615
The link does not seem to be working; based on the error message, I think that the picture may be in an archive generates URLs that expire when the user signs out or a session times out.
Closed by Metropolitan as of September 9, 2010: View link
According this article, the theater opened in 1977; it is going to be used as a training site for firefighters and EMTs before the wrecking ball falls: View link
Demolition is apparently imminent: View link
I certainly cannot say for sure, but I think it probably was not built; if it was, it probably opened under a different name, and at a different location and there does not seem to be any real trace of it today. Aerial photos of W. 69th and S. Ada do show a large building that had retail on the first floor and two floors of apartments above on the NE corner, but nothing about it appears to suggests to me that a theater was ever part of it. The other corners today don’t suggest anything either that would indicate that a theater was once there, though the NW corner has a building not of the 1920s on it and also a considerable amount of vacant space.
The Park Theater in the Humboldt Park was born as the Isis, but if its entry here on CT is accurate, the name change occurred before 1920, so Isis might have been an available name. Most of the theaters in this general area of Chicago were around 63rd and Halsted.
This probably half-forgotten theater was in the Canadian news recently because of a raid on it by the RCMP that uncovered a large marijuana-growing operation there. Here is one of the stories that has a picture of the former theater: View link
Yes, Michael, I am indeed an amateur, as I imagine are the vast majority of those who post on this site. A more precise word would probably be enthusiast. Posters on CT are of many ages, come from many walks of life, vary in education, writing style, and as far as theaters are concerned, include people who have worked in them in various capacities or simply those who come here to offer their memories and the information they wish to share in a community of people that have a common interest. Ultimately this variety is what gives this site (and many others on the internet) the strength, color and vitality they have.
In addition, there are also vast differences in posters' access to materials, in the accuracy of their memories and in their willingness or ability to verify information before posting. There are people who post on this site whose postings sometimes annoy me. But aside from an occasional gentle mention that a discussion is going off-topic (as this one is, so it is going to be my last comment in this matter), I would not dream of disparaging any contributor or any source. If I think something is wrong, I offer what I think is correct and why, doing so as respectfully as I can, always assuming that postings are made in good faith and from a genuine wish to share, to have fun, and to be part of a community with a deeply shared interest.
This is not an academic, scholarly, or scientific journal or site nor even a newspaper (except for the news page) where some refined notion of “accuracy” is desirable or essential. I have read the guidelines very carefully, and there is not the slightest indication that postings need conform to the standards of academic research or scholarly writing or those of responsible journalism. As a person with three academic degrees, I too have done that type of writing and understand fully the standards used in that realm and why they are in place.
The irony is that in expecting such standards to be applied to postings on CT (and let me gently suggest that you perhaps do not fully appreciate this), is that it would really be counterproductive. The far less restrictive guidelines in place here cause portraits of theaters to emerge that, over time, are far richer, complete, and nuanced – and ultimately MORE accurate – than that which could ever be achieved by just posting information culled from newspapers, trade magazines, the Film Daily Yearbooks, and similar sources. The very fact that errors sometimes occur gives newcomers, even those with just a small piece to offer, the opportunity to comment and thus the site grows.
Yes, the process is slow and errors of fact and memory shall inevitably occur and I am not suggesting that posters just post anything, but what is being created here in the way it currently is will be a more complete record of the theaters and (especially) what they meant to people, created through an enjoyable (well, most of the time, anyway) process.
My guess is that it was not a roulette wheel; it probably a Dec-O-Win wheel (or a variation; different theaters used different names for similar promotions). Dec-O-Win or its clones were used by theaters from roughly the 1930s to the 1950s during times when attendance was slacking off. Patrons were given numbered tickets and a theater worker would spin the wheel. Holders of winning numbers got small prizes such as household items like glassware, theater passes, and occasionally small amounts of cash. The Oakland Paramount still revives Dec-O-Win when it shows classic films; there a story and a video about it here: View link
You raise a very interesting – and complex – issue here that is related to the ongoing debate that has been going on in the U.S. for many years around the appropriate role of government in supporting private businesses. I think you make a good case for more transparency with regard to the criteria used to determine eligibility for granting not-for-profit status. Some would, myself included, contend that operating as a not-for-profit is not identical with the reception of a government subsidy or handout, arguing that it is more comparable to the tax exemptions granted, say, to senior citizens. I am sure that others would point to a long history of private/public endeavors, and I am sure, to the recent huge government involvement in the operations of the American automakers and big banking institutions. It is that thorny problem of what is best in the public interest. As far as the purpose and mission of this site is concerned, the granting of 501c3 status obviously has resulted in the preservation of some seriously endangered theaters that might otherwise have been converted to purposes that would have either obliterated their architectural characteristics as theaters or resulted in their demolition.
I do think (and perhaps this is a point that is considered when the granting of not-for-profit status is being debated) that there should be a determination as to what degree the loss of revenue from a business operating as not-for-profit is offset by the benefit of increased area foot traffic to businesses like restaurants, etc. I think there is a difference – in terms of the public good – to granting 501c3 status to say a small, historic theater in a small town that probably can’t be upgraded to a multiplex with stadium seating and now-increasingly other amenities and the kind of tax breaks that have been granted to some operators of new multiplexes that have been noted in some of the news reports of new theater developments here on CT. I do think that if a theater can be a run at a profit, it should be. If it can’t – and the determination of this I think can be very difficult – then perhaps something a 501c3 arrangement may be appropriate as long as it does not force a for-profit enterprise into competition with it. I would not, though agree, that theaters should always conform to some kind of absolute sink-or-swim, make a profit or die policy.
The Angelika situation may have been more complicated than the cost of the A/C repair. There were quite a few follow-up reports in both the regular Houston papers and the online entertainment blogs that new leasing negotiations had been going on for months and that the Angelika had been on a month-to-month basis for some time. It would not be surprising though if the A/C problems were the straw that broke the camel’s back if they could not agree whose responsibility it was to fix it.
I wonder, especially in view of the rumors of closing that have surfaced over the last few years, and in light of Landmark’s recent theater closings in some other cities, if this theater will survive as construction has begun on Emagine Entertainment’s ten-plex nearby – especially if the new theater books some of Landmark’s traditional arthouse fare.
Michael, I shall NOT be discouraged from using the information from Mike Rivest’s site or any other online source by you or anyone else except the moderators if they so tell me. No source, not even yours, is always100% accurate. If you find an error, then while being respectful of both the poster and the source, correct it.
I truly enjoyed reading this as I was unable to attend the showing. I very appreciated the wealth of technical detail. Rick is to be congratulated for writing it, and Michael, thank you for posting it here.
Out of curiosity, as I am sure most of you know, there was a 70mm rerelease of “This is Cinerama” in the early 70s. The prints were was credited to a company called Film Effects of Hollywood. Were they generated from the 65mm internegative that Linwood Dunn created or was the Dunn internegative created much
later? Is it known how Film Effects of Hollywood created those prints in the 70s, if any of those prints exist, and, if they do, their screenability?
Another article about the proposed project to raze the theater and build a hotel; it has a picture of the theater after it closed that will enlarge if you click on it: View link
A developer is proposing to build a hotel on the site; apparently, the building is already slated for demolition: View link
Thanks for letting me and others know this; the problem must have been temporary; I kept getting “Image not Found” messages.
The picture links in Ed Solero’s post of May 15, 2006 referenced above no longer function; however, a new link to them can be found in his post of October 3, 2007.
The current stage curtains at the former Mark Hellinger are currently red, but they may be replacements for ones that were green.
Based on this, it would appear that the name change will be effective on or before September 14, and if the sketch of the signage and the text in the article is correct, Best Buy is going with “Theater” rather than “Theatre”: View link
A 2007 picture of the Grand in Alexandria: View link